Re: comments about some JM issues

Le mar 15/04/2003 ŗ 17:38, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> "Editorial" category...
> #84, #90:  I don't know what he means by "reflected in structure" and 
> "grouped structurally".  Is he saying, have a "DoV Guidelines" chapter and 
> an "Other Guidelines" chapter?  IMO, another level of structure adds 
> nothing.  [Oops, I see that these two are grouped in a series of "Related 
> DoV issues"]

I'm not really sure what he means too, but I think I agree with him that
moving the DoV section out of the introduction would be worthwhile...
We could make the second section a section about dimensions of
variability for instance.

> #85:  "self-sufficient guidelines and checkpoints" -- it would be a huge 
> amount of work, and take a long time, IMO.

Well, what he's asking is not do it completely, but to do it as much as
possible... That's probably something we need to keep in mind, and even
maybe to make a specific reading of the specGL through this view.

> #86:  "Spelling, grammar, and style" -- okay on spelling and grammar; the 
> "style" comment -- while I sympathize, on the other hand it is problematic 
> to get uniform style with a mix of authors.

I have 2 issues with this:
- he doesn't say where the errors are; I'm likely not to find them, so
we probably need someone to make a quick pass through
- regarding the style, I'm again not in a position to spot these changes
of style easily; but I think it is not that important (it's in the "nice
things to have" category)

> #87:  abbreviations -- again, I don't understand his comment (is 'bibloc' 
> something from xmlspec?)

Yes, it is

>.  I assume that he means the references like 
> "[SMIL20]", which indeed should refer to something in References.  Do we 
> have instances that do not?

I have tried to make sure they do appear... Maybe he just means that
they should be in [] also in the references section? I don't know...

> #89:  "move the glossary into 1.6" -- I have no strong feeling.  It is done 
> both ways (e.g., WAI does it our way).  I slightly prefer our way.

So do I... 

> In "Substantive" category, here are some comments/questions:
> #97:  "Modules as extension points"  -- I don't understand what he means by 
> "point of extension" [This issue is grouped into the 
> profiles/modules/levels group]

Well, in Web Services, you can swap a module for a new one, provided
you've followed some rules in defining the new module. It is an
extension mechanism, indeed.

> #103:  "Distributed conformance section OK" -- I think he misunderstands 
> the checkpoint (10.1), by his (incorrect) assertion that SpecGL 
> fails.  SpecGL has a conformance section, that is a single starting point 
> to find all other conformance provisions.  I suggest that 10.1 is too 
> terse, and needs a little bit of clarifying discussion.

The culprit here is that we are using the term "conformance
requirements" in 2 meanings:
- the requirements you have to meet to be compliant with the spec (our
"conformance requirements" labels)
- the requirements that are derived from a given conformance policy
I agree that this needs clarification.

> #105:  Part of the comment is, "nor is it entirely clear that these 
> separate sections do not contradict one another."  This is an unprocessable 
> comment (how do we prove "no contradiction", in the lack of any asserted 
> contradictions?).  Maybe it will go away if we do some consolidating of GLs.

Yeah, unclear...

> #107:  A[A[A]] priroities versus OpsGL table 1 -- we can make this go away 
> by agreeing that we will fix it in OpsGL, which definitely does set up a 
> parallel and in some places contradictory requirement.

Yes... This table has caused way too much damage, we need to get rid of

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux -

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 11:43:48 UTC